As the new year begins, pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies are preparing for big changes. Healthcare reform, constrained capital markets, and a shifting regulatory environment all spell new challenges for the industry. We continue with the second part of our year-end conversation with G. Steven Burrill, CEO of Burrill & Company and the publisher of The Burrill Report, with a look ahead to 2010 and beyond, what companies are doing to adapt to the changing environment, and whether or not the worst is over.

As 2009 began, a legislative battle around healthcare reform and a troubled economic environment stood ready to set the stage for the year. But a series of jaw-dropping acquisitions, robust partnering activity and a pick up in venture capital made the year a big one on the financing front. In the first part of a two-part interview G. Steven Burrill, CEO of Burrill & Company and the publisher of The Burrill Report, discusses the events of 2009, how the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry adapted to a changing environment, and the meaning behind the numbers.

For the first time in 10 years, top executives at technology companies saw their 2009 total cash compensation target drop slightly, but comparable executives at life sciences firms experienced an average increase of 3.5 percent in total cash compensation year over year, according to a study of private businesses from the executive search firm  J. Robert Scott and Ernst & Young.  Among the more than 200 emerging, private life sciences firms surveyed, CEOs attained an average base salary of $273,000, up 3.2 percent from 2008. CEOs at these life sciences firms, however, received average bonuses of $48,000 in 2008 or 44 percent of their target bonus, down from 73 percent in 2007. We spoke to Erik Lundh, managing director with the executive search firm J. Robert Scott, about the findings in the report, why life science executives were better insulated from the economic downturn than their high-tech counterparts and what pressures companies may feel to retain talent as the economy turns.

The global financial crisis and healthcare reform efforts around the world will likely drive up the effective tax rate for the pharmaceutical and life sciences companies, according to a new report from PricewaterhouseCoopers. At the same time countries looking to attract research and development and manufacturing to bolster their economies are offering tax incentives to lure pharmaceutical companies. We spoke to Michael Swanick, partner and global pharmaceutical and life sciences tax leader for PricewaterhouseCoopers about the changing tax environment for pharmaceutical companies, potential areas of new tax obligations, and the growing complexity of managing these issues.

Earlier this month pharmaceutical companies joined with Internet companies for a hearing on social media held by the U.S Food and Drug Administration. At issue in the two day hearings was what if any regulations need to be put into place to control how drug and device makers promote their products online in forums ranging from blogs to Twitter. The lack of regulatory clarity has left many pharmaceutical companies cautious about wading into this brave new world. The hearings followed warning letters sent by the agency to 14 companies in April about their marketing of drugs online because they failed to include risk information. We spoke to Peter Pitts, president of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest and a partner and director of global healthcare at Porter Novelli about why pharma companies want to engage with customers through social media, the regulatory issues surrounding its use, and why the questions raised by the industry’s use of social media will not be solved by simple answers.

The diagnostics industry is carefully watching the Supreme Court as it recently concluded oral arguments in Bilski v. Kappos, which raises a fundamental question about what can and can’t be patented. Though the case centers on whether a method for hedging risk in commodities trading is patentable, a ruling in the case could up end the diagnostics industry by rendering the algorithms underlying molecular diagnostics unpatentable. We spoke to Ken Chahine, a professor of law at the University of Utah about the Bilski case, his readings on the oral arguments, and why its outcome is crucial to diagnostics makers.

Complete Genomics is helping to usher in a new era of biomedical research with breakthrough technology for low-cost genome sequencing that promises to help researchers unlock the genetic mysteries underlying diseases. The Mountain View, California-based company recently announced that the Institute for Systems Biology will work with it to sequence 100 genomes in a study of Huntington’s disease, an effort that will represent the largest human genome disease association study to date. We spoke to Cliff Reid, CEO of Complete Genomics about the project, how low-cost sequencing technology promises to revolutionize biomedical research, and his company’s ambitious vision.

Though money is flowing more freely into the biotech sector these days, one consequence of the financial turmoil of recent years has been that it’s forced companies to think more broadly about their funding sources. At the same time, a greater emphasis on translational research and increased funding to the National Institutes of Health is creating greater opportunities for companies. We spoke to Ram May-Ron, vice president of the Boston-based FreeMind Group, which specializes in helping companies raise money from government agencies through grants and contracts, about the opportunities for life sciences companies to get government funding today, how such grants fit into a broader funding strategy and why he’s been disappointed in the stimulus package so far.

When the annual BIO Investor Forum was held a year ago, the financial world was reeling. It was a grim time for the biotech sector as share prices fell, the environment for raising money was bad as its ever been and companies cut employees and programs in an effort to forge strategies for survival. What a difference a year makes. As the industry returns to San Francisco for the forum this year, which runs October 28 and 29 at the Palace Hotel, stocks have lifted, money is flowing again into the sector and clinical successes are fueling optimism. We spoke to Jim Greenwood, president and CEO of the Biotechnology Industry Organization, about this year’s forum, how far we’ve come in the past year, and what case there is to be made for investing in the sector today.

A recent spate of public offerings is heating up optimism that the IPO window may be once again opening for biotechs. Indeed, money has been flowing into the sector and there have been a number of financings that have raised hope that it is possible for biotechs to once again go public. But not everyone thinks an IPO window for biotechs is such a good thing. And with cash rich pharmaceutical companies still in need of rebuilding their pipelines, they, rather than IPO investor, may be positioned to capture the best and the brightest of what could be the IPO class of 2010. We spoke to John McCamant, editor of the Medical Technology Stock Letter about the state of the IPO market for biotechs, what it will take for companies in the sector to go public, and lessons learned from past IPO windows.

Lately there have been some encouraging signs of life on the biotech landscape. Stock prices are up, clinical trials results have been encouraging, and even Theravance won its long-awaited approval for its antibiotic after a three-year odyssey with regulators. Though the sector’s performance has lagged the major indices this year, public markets are showing greater receptivity and money is flowing into biotechs once again. We spoke to Peter Winter, editor of The Burrill Report, about where the industry is today, what’s been driving improvements in the sector and what to expect in the fourth quarter and beyond.

In a recent commentary in Nature Biotechnology, Bruce Booth, partner with Atlas Ventures, argues that the days of the IPO market offering biotech companies cheap capital, and liquidity for its investors, are over. While many people are now focused on whether the IPO window is returning for biotechs, Booth argues that early-stage investors need to develop new models that don’t rely on IPOs as an exit. We spoke to Booth about lessons from the last IPO window, why it dampened rather than fostered innovation, and why he sees structured buyouts as the answer.

Since 2001, the United States government has spent substantial resources on preparing the nation against a bioterrorist attack. The Obama administration’s proposed biodefense budget for fiscal 2010, the first since the attacks of Septmeber 11, 2001 from an administration other than the Bush administration, continues to grow the budget after a period of flattening. The bulk of the funding, though, is directed into areas that have multiple goals that extend beyond biodefense to include such things as vaccine development and public health planning. Crystal Franco, senior analyst at the Center for Biosecurity at the Univeristy of Pittsburgh Medical Center in Baltimore analyzes the budget in an article “Billions for Biodefense,” which appears in the latest issue of Biosecurity and Bioterrorism. We spoke to Franco about the allocation of the funding, the focus on multiple goals, and whether or not we’re getting any bang for our buck.

A study published in the online edition of the American Journal of Public Health estimates that nearly 45,000 deaths annually are associated with a lack of health insurance. That figure is about two and a half times higher than an estimate from the Institute of Medicine in 2002 based on data from 1993. The researchers found that uninsured, working-age Americans have a 40 percent higher risk of death than their privately insured counterparts, up from a 25 percent excess death rate found in 1993. We spoke to Steffie Woolhandler, study co-author and professor of medicine at Harvard University about the findings, why the problem has grown more acute in recent years and what the reserach adds to the ongoing debate over healthcare reform.

Congress is back from its summer recess and President Obama, with his address to a joint session of the House and Senate, is trying to push healthcare reform legislation across the finish line. We spoke to Jim Greenwood, president and CEO of the Biotechnology Industry Organization about healthcare reform, other items on the industry’s legislative agenda, and whether new NIH director Francis Collin’s idea to boost his agency’s funding by collecting royalties from the industry, has any chance of flying.

The death of Senator Edward Kennedy comes at a critical time for healthcare reform, an issue he helped put center stage in the Obama administration’s agenda. Kennedy, who called healthcare reform “the cause of my life,” was viewed as someone skilled at reaching across the aisle.  He also represented a critical vote on the legislation that will likely need 60 votes to pass in the Senate. We spoke to David Wasserman, house editor for The Cook Political Report, about what Kennedy’s death means to healthcare reform efforts, whether Democrats will be able to rally around his memory, and what it will take to pass the legislation.

Investors in biotechnology are overwhelmingly bullish on the sector, according to a newly released investor sentiment survey from the Biotechnology Industry Organization and Thomson Reuters. The study, which can be accessed through the link below, is based on the response of participants representing firms with $2.3 trillion in assets under management, including $266 billion in healthcare and $76 billion in biotech. We spoke to John Craighead, managing director of investor relations and business development at BIO about the study, what investors are looking for as catalysts for biotech stocks, and what keeps them up at night. The report can be accessed by clicking here.  

 

The emergence of a new generation of molecular diagnostics that is helping to usher in an era of personalized medicine is fueling dealmaking within the sector. Pharmaceutical companies are searching for biomarkers that can improve the efficiency of their drug development, they are seeking out companion diagnostics that can stratify patients for their new therapeutics, and regulators are increasingly requiring biomarker testing to guide prescribing of a growing list of drugs. A new report from PricewaterhouseCoopers entitled Diagnostics 2009: Moving Towards Personalized Medicine, examines the forces that are driving these trends. We spoke to Gerry McDougall, a principal in PricewaterhouseCoopers’ Healthcare Advisory Services, about the growing deal activity in the diagnostic sector, why pharmaceutical companies have an increasing appetite for these companies and what’s ahead in 2010.

A new generation of cancer drugs is providing greater results for patients, but they carry a heavy price tag. The average cost of providing a colorectal cancer patient with a 24-week chemotherapy regimen increased to $36,300 in 2005, up  from just $127 in 1993. But researchers at Cornell University argue that the true cost of cancer drugs – once longevity and quality of life are considered – is actually as much as 30 percent less than a decade ago. We spoke to study author Sean Nicholson, associate professor in the Department of Policy Analysis and Management at Cornell University and a Faculty Research Fellow at the National Bureau of Economic Research, about the study, how he and his colleague arrived at those numbers and how policymakers, payors and patients should measure the value of innovative medical technologies that may be more expensive than their predecessors, but provide important new benefits.

New legislation granting the U.S. Food and Drug Administration jurisdiction over tobacco products represents a serious compromise on the part of tobacco control advocates, according to an essay in the open access journal Public Library of Science— Medicine. Stanton Glantz, professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco and director of the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education and his colleagues say that the new policy is another example of legislative compromise with the tobacco industry that can lead to short-term public health gains at the expense of long-term progress.  We spoke to Glantz about his concerns over the legislation, why it may be an obstacle to meaningful regulation of the industry, and why some in big tobacco welcome FDA regulation.

In this third in a series of podcasts focused on rare disease patient advocates jointly produced by The Burrill Report, the California Healthcare Institute, and the Children’s Rare Disease Network, we speak to Susan Cornelius, business advisor to The Nicholas Conor Institute for Pediatric Cancer Research. When her granddaughter struggled against cancer, she was frustrated that new technology was unavailable to her and that all doctors could offer were surgery, radiation or chemotherapy – what she characterized as cut, burn, or poison the child for a disease, in her granddaughters case, that was genetically-based. Cornelius lost her granddaughter to cancer in 2008, but now works to bring about changes to the way research is conducted.

 

In this second in a series of podcasts focused on rare disease patient advocates jointly produced by The Burrill Report, the California Healthcare Institute, and the Children’s Rare Disease Network, we speak to Beth Anne Baber, CEO of The Nicholas Conor Institute for Pediatric Cancer Research. When Baber’s son Nicholas was diagnosed with stage 3 neuroblastoma she and her husband, both cancer researchers, fully understood the seriousness of the diagnosis. Because of the location of the tumor, radiation and surgery were not options. But as they explored treatments they discovered a startling fact. Most cancer therapies used to treat children were about 25 years old and drug companies weren’t generally pursuing new therapies for children with various cancers because the markets simply weren’t large enough. Her institute offers a new model. It seeks out industry partners to help develop specific technologies it wants to bring into the clinic while helping to fund that work.

In this first in a series of podcasts focused on rare disease patient advocates jointly produced by The Burrill Report, the California Healthcare Institute, and the Children’s Rare Disease Network, we speak to Debra Miller, president and founder of Cure Duchenne. When Miller’s five-year-old son was diagnosed with Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy, she faced grim news. The progressive muscle loss caused by the disease typically leaves these children wheelchair-bound by age 10 and robs them of their lives by 20. As she and her husband explored treatment options and ways they could become to raise money for research, they found that existing organizations were often focused on palliative care and focused on academic research rather than working with industry. Miller and her husband launched Cure Duchenne to help fund promising research at biotech companies in the hopes of seeing these therapies developed and commercialized. We spoke to Miller about her son’s story, new approaches to treating Duchenne, and the problems of funding cutting-edge research

 

The second quarter saw the markets come roaring back as the Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 12 percent and the Nasdaq Composite Index soared 20 percent.  The biotech sector didn’t fare as well, but managed to end the quarter in positive territory as the Burrill Biotech Select Index gained 3 percent. Nevertheless, some biotech stocks, such as Dendreon, showed they could be explosive, while others just seemed to blow up. We spoke to Peter Winter, editor-in-chief of The Burrill Report about the sector’s performance in the second quarter, the financing and dealmaking activity, and what to expect in the second half of 2009.

For four decades, an informal network of public-private partnerships has collaborated to support the advancement of the life sciences. The result has been jobs, wealth creation, improved healthcare, and prospects for new sources of energy. But those partnerships are cracking under pressure from a range of forces including constrained public budgets, the turmoil in capital markets, and the prospects of healthcare reform. Corey Goodman, former president of Pfizer's Biotherapeutics and Bioinnovation Center and an adjunct professor at the University of California, San Francisco, will be featured as a panelist at The first BioEconomy Summit, which will be held June 25 in Silicon Valley. We spoke to Goodman about the pressures on the bioeconomy, what needs to be done to make sure it continues to grow, and why policymakers should care about its future health. 

 

More information on The BioEconomy Summit can be found on the event’s website.

 

Since the mapping of the human genome in 2003, the pace of new discoveries about the genetic underpinning of diseases and the ability to use this information to better segment patients for targeted therapies has advanced at a dizzying pace. The emergence of personalized medicine as a powerful force reshaping healthcare is starting to change everything from the way drug companies develop therapies to the way doctors treat patients. But barriers remain from realizing the benefits of this new approach. We spoke to Ed Abrahams, executive director of the Personalized Medicine Coalition about “The Case for Personalized Medicine,” a new report from the organization. Burrill & Company, publisher of The Burrill Report, is a member of the Personalized Medicine Coalition. We talked to Abrahams about the promise of personalized medicine, hurdles that need to be overcome, and the critical role it could play in healthcare reform.

 

In its annual report on the biotechnology industry, Ernst & Young warns that the global financial crisis threatens to render the business models that have driven the sector to date unsustainable. The funding drought is placing these business models that fueled biotechnologies growth since its inception under unprecedented strain, the reports says. But emerging trends will likely open the way for new and more sustainable ways of funding drug development, according to E&Y. We spoke to Glen Giovannetti, Ernst & Young’s Global Biotechnology Leader, about the pressures on the industry today, why existing business models may not work going forward and what new business models the changing landscape point to for the future.

In just a matter of days, the biotechnology industry’s attention will shift to Atlanta. No, we’re not expecting a major pronouncement from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Instead, the 2009 BIO International Convention will kick off in The Big Peach May 18. It is the largest annual gathering for the industry drawing people from 60 countries. The event this year comes at a time of great change for the industry, so we thought we’d check in with Peter Winter, editor in chief of The Burrill Report, about the mood going into the convention, the hot topics this year, and what to look for at the conference.  

As the swine flu spreads across more and more countries, the number of people infected with the disease for now remains low. But public health officials are worried that a deadly pandemic may be unfolding before our eyes. The World Health Organization has pushed its influenza pandemic alert to the second highest level and instructed all countries to immediately activate their pandemic preparedness plan. Alexandra Stern, associate director of the Center for the History of Medicine at the University of Michigan, has conducted extensive research into the response of U.S. cities to the 1918-1919 influenza pandemic. We talked to Stern about the challenges of containing a pandemic in our interconnected world today, about why efforts to contain the 1918 pandemic failed in some major cities, and what lessons public health officials can learn from the past.

Reg Kelly, the director of the California Institute for Quantitative Biosciences or QB3, thinks even though the Obama Administration’s stimulus package promises to direct billions of dollars into research, it is critical to change the way universities engage with the private sector to achieve the full benefit of such public investment in basic research. At a recent conference held by BayBio, the Northern California biotechnology industry association, Kelly spoke about some of the efforts underway at QB3 to interact differently with industry in the hopes of speeding the translation of discoveries to products that can benefit both the patients and the economy. Following his keynote address, we spoke to Kelly about the changing role of the university, why technology transfer alone is inadequate for delivering university discoveries to the public, and the need to create incentives to drive academics to focus on work that benefits the public good.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average posted its worst January performance ever and worst February since the Great Depression, and then in March it did an about face and generated one of its biggest one-month gains in years. The IPO market still remained closed to biotechs, but on the financing side the numbers actually looked pretty good in the first quarter as the industry posted a 47 percent increase over the same period a year ago. With Roche’s purchase of Genentech, the collective market cap for the biotech sector sunk below the $300 billion mark, but the deal also fuels the discussion about whether it even has meaning anymore to talk about a pharmaceutical industry and a biotechnology industry that are separate and distinct from each other. We spoke to Peter Winter, editor of The Burrill Report about the first quarter numbers, where the money went, and what it all means.

There are signs that the economy may be stabilizing. After six consecutive months of decline, factory orders rose for the first time in February. The stock market, after a dismal start to the year, soared in March and has now moved into positive territory for the year. And there are some signs of the housing market leveling off. Nevertheless jobless numbers continue to reach records and the pharmaceutical and biotech industries have not been immune to the job cuts. A tally by The Burrill Report found in the first quarter alone, 90 companies announced nearly 30,000 job cuts as the number of new U.S. claims for state unemployment benefits jumped to a 26 year high last week. John Challenger, CEO of the outplacement firm Challenger, Gray, & Christmas, offers some perspective on the job losses in the life sciences, how companies should go about their downsizing, and what newly displaced workers should do to get new jobs. 

Comparative effectiveness research, long an area of debate among academics and policy wonks, is suddenly racing toward primetime. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has just named a 15-member to a panel that will advise the government on how to spend the $1.1 billion in federal stimulus funding the Obama administration has set aside for comparing the effectiveness of medical treatments. We spoke to Tony Coelho, chairman of the Partnership to Improve Patient Care, a coalition of physicians, patient,  and industry groups focused on the issue, about the role of comparative effectiveness research, concerns about its use as a blunt tool to cut spending at the expense of patient access to new drugs, and the political fight ahead.

President Barack Obama named Margaret Hamburg, former New York City Health Commissioner, to head the FDA. At the same time, he also named Baltimore City Health Commissioner Joshua Sharfstein as Hamburg’s principal deputy. Sharfstein previously worked for Democratic Congressman Henry Waxman, a harsh critic of the pharmaceutical industry. When Obama announced his choices, much of his comments focused on food safety issues, an area of public embarrassment for the agency during the past year. Little, however, was said about the agency’s mission to regulate drugs and medical devices. We spoke to Peter Pitts, former FDA associate commissioner and president of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest about Obama’s selections, what the President’s picks will mean for industry, and the challenges ahead for Hamburg and Sharfstein in their new jobs.

President Barack Obama’s executive order removing barriers to scientific research involving human embryonic stem cells overturned Bush era restriction that significantly limited federal funding of this work. At the same time, Obama issued a memorandum on scientific integrity – part of an effort, he said, to “restore scientific integrity in government decision making.” We spoke to Stacie Propst, vice president of scientific policy and outreach for the advocacy group Research!America about the Obama executive order, the changes he is bringing to the nation’s science policy, and whether there’s any hope for science to become delinked from politics in the future. 

This week, leaders in the House and Senate joined to introduce legislation to reform the United State patent system. This follows failed efforts at patent reform in the previous two sessions of Congress. The high-technology industry has long pushed for patent reform, but their efforts have been at odds with the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, which are concerned that the legislation would weaken patent protections and consequently cripple their ability to raise capital. We spoke to the Biotechnology Industry Organization’s CEO Jim Greenwood about the new legislation, how it differs from previous versions, and the concerns that remain for the biotech companies.

Recently Genzyme CEO Henri Termeer was quoted as saying he was ready to go on as much as a $600 million shopping spree for new personalized medicine treatments. Big Pharma companies are no different. They’ve embraced personalized medicine as a central part of their future as key patents expire, generic competition grows, and demands to demonstrate the value of their medicines increase.  We spoke to The Burrill Report’s editor Peter Winter about Termeer’s comments and the growing personalized medicine trend within Big Pharma.

Stock prices have tanked, financial markets have seized and companies are laying off staff and putting promising projects on ice.  In the midst of all of this grim news it’s easy to overlook an important milestone for the biotechnology industry.  Peter Winter, editor of The Burrill Report, though, has been crunching the numbers and he says some 40 years after the industry began, it actually hit a major milestone in 2008 by turning profitable for the first time in its history. It’s not all good news by any means, but we talk to Winter about this major milestone for the industry, what we should make of it, and the emerging world of the biotechnology haves and the biotechnology have-nots.

Back in July, the Swiss pharmaceutical company Roche offered $43.7 billion, or $89 a share, for the 44 percent of Genentech it doesn’t already own.  Since then, talks have not progressed well. Roche last week said it would launch a hostile bid for the company at $86.50 – less than it originally offered. Genentech, which has told Roche it’s worth $112 a share, asked its shareholder not to act on the bid. But with the latest maneuvering by Roche came filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that shed new light on the behind the scenes wrangling between the two companies. We spoke to TheStreet.com’s senior columnist Adam Feuerstein, who is also responsible The Street’s investment newsletter Biotech Select, about the emerging drama between the two companies and where it will all end.

The Obama Administration’s drive to reform healthcare suffered a serious setback when the president’s pick to lead the effort, Capitol Hill veteran Tom Daschle, suddenly bowed after embarrassing tax revelations. Daschle withdrew his nomination to head the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. In addition, he said he will not serve as director of the newly created White House Office of Health Reform. The end of Daschle’s cabinet bid was a blow since many believed the Democrat from South Dakota, who spent 26 years in Congress, was uniquely qualified to lead the reform effort. Daschle was respected on both sides of the aisle and was viewed as someone who could shepherd complex and controversial healthcare reform through the rough-and-tumble world of Washington politics. What’s more, he had penned the book Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis, which provides a blueprint for overhauling the U.S. healthcare system. We spoke to Henry Aaron, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, about what Daschle’s withdrawal means to healthcare reform and where the Obama administration goes from here.

After a long and often frustrating back-and-forth with regulators, Geron said it had won clearance from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to begin human clinical trials of its experimental therapy derived from human embryonic stem cells to treat patients with acute spinal cord injury. It is the first human embryonic stem cell-derived therapy to enter the clinic. We spoke to Bernard Siegel a leading expert on stem cell policy and the founder and executive director of the Genetics Policy Institute, about the significance of Geron finally getting a green light from the FDA to begin clinical trials and what might be ahead for the field under the new Obama administration.

As the Obama administration takes over in Washington, the biotechnology industry is readying for a busy year on the legislative front. Ongoing fights over issues such as patent reform and biosimilars will continue, but new ones surrounding healthcare reform, the regulatory environment, and comparative effectiveness could dramatically alter the landscape for the industry. And, with the seizing of capital markets, the biotechnology industry is turning to Washington to help with a more immediate crisis as 300 publicly traded biotechnology companies— 75 percent of all public biotech companies – have less than one year of cash remaining, and 120 of those have less than six months cash on hand. We spoke to BIO CEO Jim Greenwood and BIO chairman Joshua Boger about what’s in store for the industry under the new administration.

It’s that time of year when thousands of executives, bankers and investors involved in the life sciences industry emerge for the JPMorgan Annual Healthcare Conference and check if they see their own shadows. The conference, which brings together more than 7,000 people for four days of presentations and meetings at the Westin St. Francis hotel in San Francisco, runs January 12 through 15.  Traditionally, the industry has looked to the meeting to gauge sentiments on the outlook for the new year, appetite for deals, and how eager investors will be to buy shares in IPOs. Though not many IPOs are expected to be filed in the first half of the new year, raising money will likely be among the top concerns of many of the companies gathered for the event. Even companies not invited to attend will fill the lobby of the St. Francis and meet in surrounding hotels and restaurants. We spoke to G. Steven Burrill, CEO of Burrill & Company and the Publisher of The Burrill Report about this year’s conference and what he’ll be looking for as he makes his way through meeting rooms.

Many of us will be happy to see 2008 over. It was a year where the economy tanked, stocks sank, and capital became a lot harder and more expensive to obtain. We spoke to Burrill & Company CEO G. Steven Burrill, publisher of The Burrill Report, about the year past and the outlook for 2009 as he completes his latest book on the outlook for the life sciences industry. This is the first in a regular series of conversations we’ll be conducting with Mr. Burrill. Here we begin with a look at the capital markets.